Potatoe1 wrote:Fact is he gave up a fairly valuable asset for a player in Ballard, who has basically been a replacement level defenseman during his tenure here.

It was a poor move no matter how you slice it.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned.

My gut feeling is there are headcase issues with AV and Ballard between the practice ice and the locker room that keeps Ballard in the doghouse...... just as much speculation that the 1rst round pick in a late in a weak draft is "a fairly valuable asset". (it is damn near a second round pick )

Involving that asset in other imagined trade scenarios is nothing short of wild what if speculation.

herb wrote:Personally, I'll worry about Gillis' management of the 2013/14 Vancouver Canucks in 2013/14. Right now, I'm more concerned about his management of the 2013 edition.

All of this hand wringing about next year, when IMO Gillis has three big tradeable contracts in Luongo, Ballard and Booth that will get this team well under the cap, is much ado about nothing. Once this year's team is eliminated, then I'll start worrying about next year's team and the relevant cap situation. Gillis has a good, but not great team this year.

+1 I am hoping we can have a SC contender this year... As has been stated by myself, RD and Potatoe the best years of the Sedin's is behind them now and although they may continue to play good hockey for many years they will never equal their performances of 2 and 3 years ago.. No star players have !! the only 3 that have won Art Ross or Hart awards after the age of 31 were The Great One, Mr Hockey and BeJesus.. and even then their production had declined .. ( Please don't even think of comparing Sedins to 3 of the greatest all time hockey players .. OK so to be a contender this year Gillis has to make some BOLD MOVES now ..Perhaps he can move Ballard and Lou .. but may have to add a rental to improve the second line.. I have little faith in the 1st line in the playoffs and we certainly need help on the PP.. Keslers return isn't the Second coming and even if he comes back in 2011 shape he isn't enough to take us to the Cup.. Love to hear a few intelligent suggestions on THIS YEARS TEAM..

herb wrote:All of this hand wringing about next year, when IMO Gillis has three big tradeable contracts in Luongo, Ballard and Booth that .

I doubt that Ballard with fetch much, and Booth likely not either.

ukcanuck wrote:Something else that seems to be over looked about that trade was the loss of Erhoff and not having a crystal ball in regards to where Hammer was going to sign and not knowing if Salo was going to comeback from a torn Achilles...

If Hamhuis took the cash in Philly, and Salo was a career ender, we all would be grateful as hell to have Ballard. I'm not a big Irish supporter exactly but to condemn ol luggage eyes for the Ballard trade is to do so with 20/20 hindsight.

Good point.GMMG has taken some gambles on Ballerd & Booth, sometimes they pay off, sometimes not.

Potatoe1 wrote:Fact is he gave up a fairly valuable asset for a player in Ballard, who has basically been a replacement level defenseman during his tenure here.

It was a poor move no matter how you slice it.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned.

My gut feeling is there are headcase issues with AV and Ballard between the practice ice and the locker room that keeps Ballard in the doghouse...... just as much speculation that the 1rst round pick in a late in a weak draft is "a fairly valuable asset". (it is damn near a second round pick )

Involving that asset in other imagined trade scenarios is nothing short of wild what if speculation.

So either you think the first rounder had no value or you think Ballard has provided value in line with his cap hit.

It's kind of one or the other.

If you are going to be the one guy alone on the island who actually thinks that trade was ok, you probably need to to do a better job arguing your position.

Potatoe1 wrote:Fact is he gave up a fairly valuable asset for a player in Ballard, who has basically been a replacement level defenseman during his tenure here.

It was a poor move no matter how you slice it.

I disagree for the reasons mentioned.

My gut feeling is there are headcase issues with AV and Ballard between the practice ice and the locker room that keeps Ballard in the doghouse...... just as much speculation that the 1rst round pick in a late in a weak draft is "a fairly valuable asset". (it is damn near a second round pick )

Involving that asset in other imagined trade scenarios is nothing short of wild what if speculation.

So either you think the first rounder had no value or you think Ballard has provided value in line with his cap hit.

It's kind of one or the other.

If you are going to be the one guy alone on the island who actually thinks that trade was ok, you probably need to to do a better job arguing your position.

A draft pick is a gamble, you could get a blue chip Lindros or Crosby, or you could get a Daigle or Falloon.A trade is also a gamble, if Ballard had been a top pairing stud then MG looks like a genius.

GM's all have good intentions, Gillis is a good executive, he gets thumbs up in re-signing previous managements core players which that in itself is a tipping of the hat nod to the previous MGMT's job well done. But when it comes to bringing in 'his own players' outside of Tanev, Higgins, and signing Garrisona and Hamhius (Not Hard signing those two) the dude has made some real stinker moves.

His biggest mistake was slagging the previous management for making the cupboards bare when he was hired, yet his cupboards, after 5 years of drafting, are currently top 3 worst in the NHL. The GM community is a fraternity and those comments are why he put himself in the bad books with a lot of GM's around the league. The guy doesn't deserve the arrogance he possesses cause he truly is mere average as a GM. He is better suited to being a President like Lowe or something and give someone else control over the final say on player personnel. He just isn't cut out in the player evaluating department. He has a Player Agent heart and those guys always over value their clients/players (hence Roberto Luongo). His whole stubborn position on Luongo is very similar to how he was as an agent and how all agents are. Unfortunately for Gillis, he has to throw his cards down cause he has basically lost this round, but are we surprised? Tallon has rooked his Queen a couple times already. Proof is in the pudding.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Zamboni Driver wrote:A trade is also a gamble, if Ballard had been a top pairing stud then MG looks like a genius.

That is the point.

Ballard has been terrible. We gave up value.

Gillis had good intentions but he botched that move.

Not the end of the world but a very clear and obvious error on his part.

Well that's perhaps the difference of opinion, as I don't think it was an "error" or mistake on MG's part. Kinda like buying a lottery ticket, if you don't win you didn't make an "error" in buying the ticket, because if you hadn't bought it you had no chance to win.

Ballard was a reasonable gamble for the GM to take IMO, but he hasn't worked out here in part due to injury and also I feel partly due to the way the coach has managed him. The issue now becomes acute due to the NHL's new deal & cap next year.Every team has taken some gambles at some point, sometimes they work out well, like Lupul in TO or Richards & Cater in LA. Compared to some of the other team's awful contracts (Gomez, Cheechoo, Redden, Leino, Kaberle etc) Ballard is a serviceable player, though overpaid.

Zamboni Driver wrote:Ballard was a reasonable gamble for the GM to take IMO, but he hasn't worked out here in part due to injury and also I feel partly due to the way the coach has managed him. The issue now becomes acute due to the NHL's new deal & cap next year.

Holy fuck, you people really need to stop blaming the coach on the failure of Ballard. Ballard makes his own bed as every other fucking human in this world. That's like blaming Bettman on why Canadian teams haven't won the Stanley Cup in his tenure. But hey, the conspiracy theories have always comforted the peons in helping them sleep at night.

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

Zamboni Driver wrote:Ballard was a reasonable gamble for the GM to take IMO, but he hasn't worked out here in part due to injury and also I feel partly due to the way the coach has managed him. The issue now becomes acute due to the NHL's new deal & cap next year.

Holy fuck, you people really need to stop blaming the coach on the failure of Ballard. Ballard makes his own bed as every other fucking human in this world. That's like blaming Bettman on why Canadian teams haven't won the Stanley Cup in his tenure. But hey, the conspiracy theories have always comforted the peons in helping them sleep at night.

One Canadian team would have won the Cup if Buttman,who is supposedly in charge, had the balls to call out the refereeing. He clearly dropped the ball in that series.

Zamboni Driver wrote:Well that's perhaps the difference of opinion, as I don't think it was an "error" or mistake on MG's part. Kinda like buying a lottery ticket, if you don't win you didn't make an "error" in buying the ticket, because if you hadn't bought it you had no chance to win.

Of course there is risk associated with every move but trades and drafting are hardly akin to the lottery which is purely random.

It's the job of the GM and the scouting staff to gather information and increase the teams odds on player personel moves.

When they make good calls then deserve praise, when they make poor ones they deserve criticism.

Ballrd was a poor move.

Ballard was a reasonable gamble for the GM to take IMO, but he hasn't worked out here in part due to injury and also I feel partly due to the way the coach has managed him.

Perhaps you are right on both issues, but the main reason Ballard has failed is because he isn't a very good player.